Journal of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 241–266 | Cite as

Measuring contraceptive values: An alternative approach

  • Carol A. E. Nickerson
  • Gary H. McClelland
  • Doreen M. Petersen


Previous assessments of individuals' values for various contraceptive consequences have employed one of four methodologies: free elicitation, direct ratings, multiple regression, or factor analysis. All four methodologies are flawed because they produce group rather than individual values, rely on rating scales, and fail to incorporate information regarding consequence trade-offs. Axiomatic conjoint measurement is proposed as an alternative methodology and used to determine individuals' values for a selected set of contraceptive consequences at two stages of the family-planning career.

Key words

conjoint measurement contraception measurement methodology values 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Addelman, S. (1962). Orthogonal main-effect plans for asymmetrical factorial experiments.Technometrics 4: 21–46.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, N. E. (1979). Decision models in population research.J. Populat. 2: 187–202.Google Scholar
  3. Adler, N. E. (1982).Adolescent contraceptive decision-making. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, Aug.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, N. H. (1981)Foundations of Information Integration Theory, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, N. H. (1982a). Cognitive algebra and social psychophysics. In Wegener, B. (ed.),Social Attitudes and Psychophysical Measurement, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 123–148.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, N. H. (1982b).Methods of Information Integration Theory, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, N. H., Krantz, D. H., and Tversky, A. (1971). An exchange on functional and conjoint measurement [Letters to the Editor],Psychol. Rev. 78: 457–458.Google Scholar
  8. Barron, F. H. (1977). Axiomatic conjoint measurement.Decis. Sci. 8: 548–559.Google Scholar
  9. Birnbaum, M. H. (1982). Controversies in psychological measurement. In Wegener, B. (ed.),Social Attitudes and Psychophysical Measurement, Erlbaum, Hiilsdale, NJ, pp. 401–485.Google Scholar
  10. Bose, R. C., and Bush, K. A. (1952). Orthogonal arrays of strength two and three.Ann. Math. Slat. 23: 508–524.Google Scholar
  11. Boston Women's Health Book Collective (1976).Our Bodies, Ourselves (2nd ed.), Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, I. S. (1984). Development of a scale to measure attitude toward the condom as a method of birth control.J. Sex Res. 20: 255–263.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, A. A., and Berelson, B. (1971). Contraceptive specifications: Report on a workshop.Stud. Family Plan. 2: 14–19.Google Scholar
  14. Cliff, N. (1973). Scaling.Annu. Rev. Psychol. 24: 473–506.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, J. B., Severy, L. J., and Ahtola, O. T. (1978). An extended expectancy-value approach to contraceptive alternatives.J. Populat. 1: 22–41.Google Scholar
  16. Combs, B. J., Hales, D. R., and Williams, B. K. (1980).An Invitation to Health: Your Personal Responsibility, Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Coombs, C. H., Dawes, R. M., and Tversky, A. (1970).Mathematical Psychology: An Elementary Introduction, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  18. Coombs, C. H., Coombs, L. C., and McClelland, G. H. (1975). Preference scales for number and sex of children.Populat. Stud. 29: 273–298.Google Scholar
  19. Crawford, T. J. (1973). Beliefs about birth control: A consistency theory analysis.Represent. Res. Soc. Psychol. 4(1): 53–65.Google Scholar
  20. Crawford, T. J., Heredia, R., and Stocker, E. (1970). Family planning attitudes and behavior as a function of the perceived consequences of family planning. In Bogue, D. J. (ed.),Further Sociological Contributions to Family Planning Research, Community and Family Study Center University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
  21. Davidson, A. R., and Jaccard, J. J. (1975). Population psychology: A new look at an old problem.J. Personal Soc. Psychol. 31: 1073–1082.Google Scholar
  22. Davidson, A. R., and Morrison, D. M. (1983). Predicting contraceptive behavior from attitudes: A comparison of within- versus across-subjects procedures.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 45: 997–1009.Google Scholar
  23. Dawes, R. M. (1972).Fundamentals of Attitude Measurement, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Dawes, R. M., and Smith T. L. (1985). Attitude and opinion measurement. In Lindzey, G., and Aronson, E. (eds.),Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, (3rd ed.), Random House, New York, pp. 509–566.Google Scholar
  25. Dixon, W. J., and Brown, M. B. (eds.) (1977).BMDP Biomedical Computer Programs. P Series University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  26. Einhorn, H. J., Kleinmuntz, D. N., and Kleinmuntz, B. (1979). Linear regressionand process tracing models of judgment.Psychol. Rev. 86: 465–485.Google Scholar
  27. Ericsson, K. A., and Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data.Psychol. Rev. 87: 215–251.Google Scholar
  28. Falmagne, J.-C. (1976). Random conjoint measurement and loudness summation.Psychol. Rev. 83: 65–79.Google Scholar
  29. Fishbein, M., and Jaccard, J. J. (1973). Theoretical and methodological considerations in the prediction of family planning intentions and behavior.Represent. Res. Soc. Psychol. 4(1): 37–51.Google Scholar
  30. Forrest, J. D., and Henshaw, S. K. (1983). What U.S. women think and do about contraception.Family Plan. Perspect. 15: 157–158, 160-166.Google Scholar
  31. Friedman, H. L. (1974). Fertility choice behavior — Some recommendations for research design.Family Plan. Perspect. 6: 184–185.Google Scholar
  32. Gough, H. G. (1973). A factor analysis of contraceptive preferences.J. Psychol. 84: 199–210.Google Scholar
  33. Green, P. E., and Wind, Y. (1973).Multiattribute Decisions in Marketing: A Measurement Approach, Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL.Google Scholar
  34. Herold, E. S., and Goodwin, M. S. (1980). Development of a scale to measure attitudes toward using birth control pills.J. Soc. Psychol. 110: 115–122.Google Scholar
  35. Holt, J. O., and Wallsten, T. S. (1974).A User's Manual for CONJOINT: A Computer Program for Evaluating Certain Conjoint-Measurement Axioms, Technical Report No.42, L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  36. Houser, B. B., and Beckman, L. J. (1978). Examination of contraceptive perceptions and usage among Los Angeles County women.Contraception 18: 7–18.Google Scholar
  37. Insko, C. A., Blake, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., and Mulaik, S. A. (1970). Attitude toward birth control and cognitive consistency: Theoretical and practical implications of survey data.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 16: 228–237.Google Scholar
  38. Jaccard, J., and Becker, M. A. (1985). Attitudes and behavior: An information integration perspective.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 21: 440–465.Google Scholar
  39. Jaccard, J. J., and Davidson, A. R. (1972). Toward an understanding of family planning behaviors: An initial investigation.J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2: 228–235.Google Scholar
  40. Jaccard, J., and Sheng, D. (1984). A comparison of six methods for assessing the importance of perceived consequences in behavioral decisions: Applications from attitude research.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 20: 1–28.Google Scholar
  41. Kee, P.-K., and Darroch, R. K. (1981). Perception of methods of contraception: A semantic differential study.J. Biosoc. Sci. 13: 209–218.Google Scholar
  42. Krantz, D. H., and Tversky, A. (1971). Conjoint-measurement analysis of composition rules in psychology.Psychol. Rev. 78: 151–169.Google Scholar
  43. Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., and Tversky, A. (1971).Foundations of Measurement, Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Kruskal, J. B. (1965). Analysis of factorial experiments by estimating monotone transformations of the data.J. Roy. Stat. Soc. 27B: 251–263.Google Scholar
  45. Marshall, J. F. (1977). Acceptability of fertility regulating methods: Designing technology to fit people.Prevent. Med. 6: 65–73.Google Scholar
  46. McCarty, D. (1981). Changing contraceptive usage intentions: A test of the Fishbein model of intention.J. Appl Soc. Psychol. 11: 192–211.Google Scholar
  47. McClelland, G. H. (1980). A psychological and measurement theory approach to fertility decision-making. In Buren, T. K. (ed.),Demographic Behavior: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Decision-Making, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 141–161.Google Scholar
  48. McClelland, G. H., and Coombs, C. H. (1975). ORDMET: A general algorithm for constructing all numerical solutions to ordered metric structures.Psychometrika 40: 269–290.Google Scholar
  49. McLean, R. A., and Anderson, V. L. (1984).Applied Factorial and Fractional Designs, Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
  50. Miller, W. B. (1979). Psychosocial aspects of contraception. InContraception: Science, Technology, and Application: Proceedings of a Symposium, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, pp. 269–287.Google Scholar
  51. Morrison, D. M. (1985). Adolescent contraceptive behavior: A review.Psychol. Bull. 98: 538–568.Google Scholar
  52. Newell, A., and Simon, H. A. (1972).Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  53. Nickerson, C. A., and McClelland, G. H. (1984). Scaling distortion in numerical conjoint measurement.Appl. Psychol. Measure. 8: 183–198.Google Scholar
  54. Nickerson, C. A., and McClelland, G. H. (1987). Beliefs and values and the sterilization decision.Populat. Environ. 9: 74–95.Google Scholar
  55. Nickerson, C. A., and McClelland, G. H. (1988). Extended axiomatic conjoint measurement: A solution to a methodological problem in studying fertility-related behaviors.Appl. Psychol Measure. 12: 129–153.Google Scholar
  56. Oakley, D. (1986). Low-fertility decision making.Soc. Biol. 33: 249–258.Google Scholar
  57. Pagel, M. D., and Davidson, A. R. (1984). A comparison of three social-psychological models of attitude and behavioral plan: Prediction of contraceptive behavior.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 47: 517–533.Google Scholar
  58. Plackett, R. L., and Burman, J. P. (1946). The design of optimum multifactorial experiments.Biometrika 33: 305–325.Google Scholar
  59. Polgar, S., and Marshall, J. F. (1976). The search for culturally acceptable fertility regulating methods. In Marshall, J. F., and Polgar, S. (eds.)Culture, Natality, and Family Planning, Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, pp. 204–218.Google Scholar
  60. Raghavarao, D. (1971).Constructions and Combinatorial Problems in Design of Experiments, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  61. Salyer, S. L., and Bausch, J. J. (1978).Toward Safe, Convenient, and Effective Contraceptives: A Policy Perspective, The Population Council, New York.Google Scholar
  62. Stewart, F. H., Guest, F. J., Stewart, G. K., and Hatcher, R. A. (1979).My Body, My Health: The Concerned Woman's Guide to Gynecology (clinician's edition), Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  63. Tanfer, K., and Rosenbaum, E. (1986). Contraceptive perceptions and method choice among young single women in the United States.Stud. Family Plan. 17: 269–277.Google Scholar
  64. Ullrich, J. R., Cummins, D. E., and Walkenbach, J. (1978). PCJM2: A program for the axiomatic conjoint measurement analysis of polynomial composition rules.Behav. Res. Methods Instrument. 10: 89–90.Google Scholar
  65. Wall, E. M. (1984). Valued outcomes in the selection of a contraceptive method.West. J. Med. 141: 335–338.Google Scholar
  66. Werner, P. D., and Middlestadt, S. E. (1979). Factors in the use of oral contraceptives by young women.J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 9: 537–547.Google Scholar
  67. Zeidenstein, G. (1979). The need for new contraceptives. InContraception: Science, Technology, and Application: Proceedings of a Symposium, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, pp. 3–17.Google Scholar
  68. Zeidenstein, G. (1980). The user perspective: An evolutionary step in contraceptive service programs.Stud. Family Plan. 11: 24–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carol A. E. Nickerson
    • 1
  • Gary H. McClelland
    • 1
  • Doreen M. Petersen
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Research on Judgment and PolicyUniversity of Colorado at BoulderBoulder

Personalised recommendations